Hot search keywords

Hot search keywords

Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? An open letter from Jiangzhuoer

Note:Translated from Jiang Zhuo’er’s original post in Chinese.
Recently, as the discussion around activating Segwit on Litecoin becomes more and more intense, many people have been asking me why my Litecoin pool is not voting for Segwit. I feel the need to address the whole Segwit issue with the following thoughts of mine.1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.
Ever since Core jumped on the complexity and lack of public understanding of AsicBoost as a way to muddy the waters of debate, the new talking point of “miners oppose Segwit for their own personal profits” has become more commonplace. But if miners oppose Segwit because it harms their profits, why would these miners sign the Hong Kong agreement?
According to the Hong Kong agreement, as long as Core had included the code for a block size increase to 2MB, all of the signing miners have already agreed to activate Segwit before the block size is increased. Why didn’t the miners oppose Segwit then, and why were they willing to agree to activate it first? Could it be that Core opposes the Hong Kong agreement?
To reiterate, the “big blockers” have never been against Segwit, but only against Segwit without a block size increase. Restricted base blocksize = killing main chain capacity = killing Bitcoin. Along with the decreasing block reward, Satoshi Nakamoto designed a mechanism for transaction fees to ensure that mining could persist well into the future. If the block size is not increased, then miners will not have enough transaction fee income and we will be stuck with a $100 billion Bitcoin network secured by a $1 billion Bitcoin mining industry. An attacker would have to spend a relatively trivial amount of money to attack the asymmetrically valuable Bitcoin economy.
Had Core simply included the code for a future block size increase, or even stated clearly in their roadmap a plan to achieve bigger blocks, then we could have avoided these several years of infighting, we would still have a united community and industry, and Bitcoin would still be moving forward. But since the very beginning Core has been unwilling to do this. Their inability and unwillingness to offer a solution that can satisfy the Bitcoin community is, to me, incomprehensible.2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.
While the cryptocurrency community’s attention was focused on the Bitcoin scaling debate, a mysterious new Litecoin developer, shaolinfry, appeared on the scene. Shaolinfry appears to be deeply familiar with Segwit, and in a short amount of time helped the rest of the LTC development team to finish writing their Segwit implementation. Once he had secured the title of “Litecoin developer,” he switched his focus to Bitcoin, proposing the “user activated soft fork” (UASF). After launching his campaign for UASF on Bitcoin, he did the same for Litecoin and piggybacked on the reputation of Charlie Lee to push for the UASF there, too.
I don’t want to guess at the true identity of shaolinfry, but it is very clear that the dispute among Bitcoin developers has spilled over into other cryptocurrencies. This has caused me to start thinking even more deeply about the question: How can a decentralized digital currency resolve development conflicts?
The answer is simple: community consensus. But what exactly is community consensus? Fortunately the Litecoin community is very small, and it didn’t take much time to find a solution: invite all of the main businesses who have something to do with Litecoin, including miners, mining pools, and exchanges to join an impartial industry group, the LTC Roundtable. The members of this group have agreed to defer personal decisions on how to upgrade the protocol to the decisions agreed to by this body through community voting.
Here I must extend profound gratitude to the Chinese Litecoin community’s PZ. PZ invited one Professor Chen from Wuhan University to design the structure and voting mechanisms of the Roundtable, and to act as liaison for all involved parties. Getting people to agree to defer to community decision making, rather than their own personal preference, is never easy, but after three months of hard work PZ succeeded in coordinating the Chinese Litecoin industry members to agree to join this group.3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.
A meeting like this with only businesses and no developers would not be meaningful. But in the course of inviting people to attend, we encountered some difficulty. Because Litecoin does not have very many real use cases, the participating businesses are mostly miners and mining pools. Asking the developers to defer to the collective decision making of the Roundtable definitely gave the developers some misgivings. The mutual distrust between the two sides caused the progress of the organization to come to a standstill.
Because communication was happening, the community did manage to clear up some other current conflicts: discussing the “fire the miners” rhetoric, Charlie Lee promised that unless the network is under 51% attack, he will not consider changing the proof-of-work algorithm. After extending an invitation, Charlie Lee has agreed to travel to China in June to discuss Segwit implementation with the members of the Roundtable.4. The market drives changes
Changes to the market happen faster than we can anticipate, and as Bitcoin’s scaling debate has been stuck in a deadlock, more and more capital is bypassing Bitcoin completely and flowing to competing cryptocurrencies. DASH, ETH, XEM, XMR, PIVX, ETC, ZEC, XRP have all seen massive growth in the last few months. Unsurprisingly, on March 30th Litecoin also began a dramatic rise.
Following the rapid increase in price, mining pools have faced pressure from Litecoin users and miners alike: Why aren’t you supporting Segwit? As far as most of these people are concerned, “let’s all come to an agreement and prevent conflict” is a distant second to the argument, “Hurry up and activate Segwit so the price will go up!” Two days later, F2Pool began signalling Segwit support.
On April 4th, Charlie Lee published a statement promising that if Litecoin blocks begin to fill up, the developers will support a hard fork to increase the block size limit, removing barriers from both sides of the argument supporting these changes. I deeply wish that Bitcoin Core would make a similar statement, or write code to this effect. Doing so would allow both sides to come to an agreement and put an end to years of debate. I still cannot understand why Core is unwilling to do this.5. More and more attacks
On April 10th, OKCoin and Huobi both finished the process of joining the LTC Roundtable, but Charlie Lee had already begun actively promoting the use of the UASF on Litecoin. If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on. Mining and proof-of-work are the established ways of coming to consensus in a decentralized currency, but the UASF has gone through no similar community consensus. Instead it is a way for developers to act as dictators and decide on the activation of features based on their own personal preferences. It has nothing to do with the users, and should be called “DASF” — developer activated soft fork.
Another negative effect of the DASF is that the “users” are defined by developer preference. It becomes trivial to say those who support the developers are users, and those who disagree with the developers are not users of this currency. If you support Segwit, you are a user. But if you prefer increasing the block size, then you don’t count as a user. If this becomes the case, all that is necessary to control Bitcoin (or any other currency) is to simply hold influence over the development team.
On April 11th, another terrible thing happened. The pools not yet supporting Segwit (Antpool, LTC1BTC, and BW) all suffered DDoS attacks. After sustaining an entire night’s DDoS attack, the next day BW began voting for Segwit. This left me astonished. If Segwit is successfully activated on Litecoin through the use of coercion and attacks, then Litecoin will forever be a pillar of disgrace, making protocol decisions through PoD (proof of DDoS).
On April 14th, F2Pool’s Wang Chun, who was already voting for Segwit, posted a message saying “Segwit will be a disaster. I am not going to support it on BTC because I am a bitcoin HODLER.” Within hours, F2Pool was the target of more DDoS attacks. Wang Chun then posted a Twitter poll asking if he should start voting for Segwit on both Litecoin and Bitcoin at the same time.

Having explained the above points, I can tell you why I am still not voting for Segwit.
Although I have my reservations about Segwit (I am a Litecoin HODLER), if it is the most widely accepted path forward then I am not opposed to it. But I am firmly opposed to the tactics being used by Segwit supporters, namely UASF (DASF) and proof-of-DDoS, to push for its activation. If the supporters of these tactics are validated by seeing them succeed on Litecoin, then both Bitcoin and Litecoin become vulnerable systems prone to criminal manipulation.
Because of this, I am adding sufficient hashrate to my pool to ensure the following:

1.Guaranteeing that Segwit does not activate by proof-of-DDoS.2.That the Litecoin community will wait until Charlie Lee’s visit to China to make this decision together.

Finally, I want to explain that LTC1BTC decided to mine several Segwit blocks as a test and a show of positive intentions. Some have claimed that we are messing with Segwit voting to manipulate the market. Please do not misread these actions.

This letter illustrates more red flags people seem to ignore about Core.
The kinds of behaviour Core supporters exhibit
certainly indicates they have intentions even darker than mere threats.
In a word, the best descriptor for those who support Core is

its worth a try to actually talk it out, some valid points were risen, and the attitude deff needs to change, a lot of aggression from both sides. And we seen the flexing from the “other side”, wasn’t too pleasing. Most people trying to get rich are pissed rather than showing concern for what really is healthy for the future of this ecosystem. Hoping for the best.

The Bitcoin Core team, Gavin in general, had been sabotaged. Whether people would like to accept this or not, it is the reality of the situation. Greg Maxwell and Adam Back have a long history of this behaviour and it is why I advocate they have nothing to do with Bitcoin development. As for Bitcoin Core itself, there are too many problems surrounding this development team that even if they produced software that is brought into the market, it comes with a high degree of risk that will never safely be recoginized. I have publicly urged other members of Bitcoin Core for many months to fire the ones causing problems, to revolt and take matters into their own hands, even if a contract is signed – there are ways to get out of it, especially under these circumstances

Meanwhile ‘his’ asics are being shut down ready to be shipped to the real customers. We all know these are Jihan’s asics not Jiang’s, even more so; these are Jihan’s customers asics, not Jihan’s nor Jiang’s.

An attacker would have to spend a relatively trivial amount of money to attack the asymmetrically valuable Bitcoin economy.

This is an important point.

Stupid analogy that came to mind…

We could make the analogy of the bitcoin network as a trapezoid with the smaller parallel side (representing on chain economy) on the bottom and the larger parallel side (representing the off chain economy) on the top resting on a table.

If we allow too much value to develop on top (side getting longer) relative to the bottom, the structure would become unstable and could topple. It is only by having a strong base relative to off chain that you maintain a strong structure that will not topple.

Instead [UASF] is a way for developers to act as dictators and decide on the activation of features based on their own personal preferences. It has nothing to do with the users, and should be called “DASF” — developer activated soft fork.
Another negative effect of the DASF is that the “users” are defined by developer preference. It becomes trivial to say those who support the developers are users, and those who disagree with the developers are not users of this currency. If you support Segwit, you are a user. But if you prefer increasing the block size, then you don’t count as a user. If this becomes the case, all that is necessary to control Bitcoin (or any other currency) is to simply hold influence over the development team.

On April 11th, another terrible thing happened. The pools not yet supporting Segwit (Antpool, LTC1BTC, and BW) all suffered DDoS attacks. After sustaining an entire night’s DDoS attack, the next day BW began voting for Segwit. This left me astonished. If Segwit is successfully activated on Litecoin through the use of coercion and attacks, then Litecoin will forever be a pillar of disgrace, making protocol decisions through PoD (proof of DDoS).
On April 14th, F2Pool’s Wang Chun, who was already voting for Segwit, posted a message saying “Segwit will be a disaster. I am not going to support it on BTC because I am a bitcoin HODLER.” Within hours, F2Pool was the target of more DDoS attacks. Wang Chun then posted a Twitter poll asking if he should start voting for Segwit on both Litecoin and Bitcoin at the same time.

Having explained the above points, I can tell you why I am still not voting for Segwit.
Although I have my reservations about Segwit (I am a Litecoin HODLER), if it is the most widely accepted path forward then I am not opposed to it. But I am firmly opposed to the tactics being used by Segwit supporters, namely UASF (DASF) and proof-of-DDoS, to push for its activation. If the supporters of these tactics are validated by seeing them succeed on Litecoin, then both Bitcoin and Litecoin become vulnerable systems prone to criminal manipulation.
Because of this, I am adding sufficient hashrate to my pool to ensure the following:

1.Guaranteeing that Segwit does not activate by proof-of-DDoS.
2.That the Litecoin community will wait until Charlie Lee’s visit to China to make this decision together.

this is so full of false facts that I have difficulties to believe they are all out of lack of knowledge. in paragraph 1 alone about every second sentence is wrong. It rather seems to be another propaganda piece. disgusting.

He more or less admitted it has everything to do with Bitcoin politics and nothing to do with Litecoin. Since he said Charlie’s willingness to increase block size should it be necessary down the line is all the miners want…

Changes to the market happen faster than we can anticipate, and as > > > Bitcoin’s scaling debate has been stuck in a deadlock, more and more > > capital is bypassing Bitcoin completely and flowing to competing > > > > > > cryptocurrencies. DASH, ETH, XEM, XMR, PIVX, ETC, ZEC, XRP have all > seen massive growth in the last few months. Unsurprisingly, on March > > > 30th Litecoin also began a dramatic rise.

And what was trigger ? lower price vs HIGHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS 😀 ? Here solution is simple take segwit then fork 2Mb 4MB when needed… but no BTC miner want stalmate and asic boost so MARKET WILL FIRE them and ETH now earn same $$$ as BTC miners. Keep guys that play of stagnation longer for sure more $$$ will flow to BTC instead of alts.

If you hate “core” so much then pay own developers multimillion $$$ for soft progress and stop whining like little babies. No is to lat so take segwit and fund good devs to fork segwit into higher blocksize.

Note:Translated from Jiang Zhuoers original post in Chinese.Recently, as the discussion around activating Segwit on Litecoin becomes more and more intense, many people have been asking me why my Litecoin pool is not voting for Segwit. I feel the need to address the whole Segwit issue with the following thoughts of mine.1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.4. The market drives changes5. More and more attackshttp://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.if you are interested, these coins are:- Groestlcoin – Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

Quote from: Amph on Today at 05:48:23 AM
…is it? where? i don’t remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin,
as a currency: yeslike bitcoin: no.where: https://www.google.com/search?q=spend+litecoinmore specifically: https://litecoin.com/services#merchants (check other categories on the left side too).Quote from: Amph on Today at 05:48:23 AM
it’s the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coinpeople are just blindly attached to litecoin that’s why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pump
i am not hyping litecoin (unlike many these days) i don’t think it can change that much about litecoin even with SegWit.but i wouldn’t call it a shitcoin either. it is the oldest altcoin with one of the biggest communities and it has lots of similarities to bitcoin and that is why i said it is different on litecoin than other altcoins.Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 05:46:11 AM
What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?
not sure exactly. but since SegWit is about malleability fix on top of other things, i suppose the altcoin has to be following the same transaction structure and the same signature.

And what was trigger ? lower price vs HIGHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS 😀 ? Here solution is simple take segwit then fork 2Mb 4MB when needed… but no BTC miner want stalmate and asic boost so MARKET WILL FIRE them and ETH now earn same $$$ as BTC miners. Keep guys that play of stagnation longer for sure more $$$ will flow to BTC instead of alts.

Why not 2MB HF first?

If core/BS show they are willing to compromise they might get more money ner on their side.

If you hate “core” so much then pay own developers multimillion $$$ for soft progress and stop whining like little babies. No is to lat so take segwit and fund good devs to fork segwit into higher blocksize.

Extended block is a non-core solution to the problem if I am not wrong.

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

Thats actually really smart, that could work. I don’t see any other good ideas.

I bet that when ETH miners will earn 2x-3x more $$$ from mining than BTC miners will rethink strategy today they earn 1:1 in USD probably they will activate segwit and from extra $$$ they will fund OWN DEV team with funding like 100m$ if they are smart. If not then ETH will eat BTC for sure overtime and market will decide.

Quote from: Sadlife on Today at 09:29:29 AM
I dont see any problem to it besides this solution eliminates bitcoin scaling and malleability then maybe this solution may fix some of litecoins problem.Litecoin just happened to be an exact copy of Bitcoin that’s why segwit is being implemented to it.

I disagree, it’s not a long term elimination to these issues at all, only a part fix.Transactions are native keys are still malleable. Only transactions on segwit keys on non-malleable = partial fix, not elimination.The scaling requires the use of segwit transactions (and still has a limit) = partial fix, not elimination.In the case of LN, people will still only want spending money in an LN channel, not risk there savings. So more on-chain capacity will be required for it to be effective, so people can move money between ‘savings’ accounts and ‘current’ accounts for the want of an analogy.

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.if you are interested, these coins are:- Groestlcoin – Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

They want to talk with Charlie, face to face. I think we can grant them that without flaming them again. no?

This community looks more and more childish, When come someone with a serious reflection and business manner, you flame them for bullshit? The segwit solution you wish so much its right there. STFU and HTFU.

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.if you are interested, these coins are:- Groestlcoin – Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

is it? where? i don’t remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin, it’s the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coinpeople are just blindly attached to litecoin that’s why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pumpQuote from: hl5460 on Today at 05:46:11 AM
What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

signaling for a whole period of the diff retarget if i’m not mistaken, just reaching the threshold % activation won’t cut it

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.if you are interested, these coins are:- Groestlcoin – Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

I think most altcoins can simply push segwit as an update. The communities are very small so it will generally be accepted pretty easily. The only barrier is a dev that can code segwit if their coin is not a direct copy of a coin that already has a working version of segwit.

To play devil’s advocate here, pushing for SegWit on Litecoin to begin with has more to do with Bitcoin than it does with Litecoin as far as I can tell. Charlie Lee himself has said he’s pushing for it so Litecoin can be used as a testing platform for Bitcoin.

And there are simpler ways, technically, to fix malleability. There are also simpler ways to increase the block size limit (for example, increasing the block size limit ;)). So if SegWit is being pushed for in Litecoin, it can be argued that it’s for Bitcoin-politics reason and not for technical merit in Litecoin.

Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 04:45:02 AM
1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.
This has zero relevance to activating Segwit on LTC.Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 04:45:02 AM
2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.
Not a reason to not vote for Segwit.Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 04:45:02 AM
3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.
It is the same as above.Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 04:45:02 AM
4. The market drives changes
No. The same people that are spreading FUD about Segwit and FUD about 51% attacking the network are the same ones pumping those scam coins.Quote
Unsurprisingly, on March 30th Litecoin also began a dramatic rise.
This is only due to the Segwit signalling.Quote
5. More and more attackshttp://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

Quote
If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.
This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn’t is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

I dont see any problem to it besides this solution eliminates bitcoin scaling and malleability then maybe this solution may fix some of litecoins problem.Litecoin just happened to be an exact copy of Bitcoin that’s why segwit is being implemented to it.

What would be their incentive to do so other than to just be assholes and deny others blocks (because they wouldn’t get any more blocks anyways)? I would be rather surprised if this is happening on any real scale.

The fundamental problem is that when you move transactions to a layer-two network, you have, by definition, added an additional layer of risk. And that risk increases the more the base layer is artificially constrained. (The smaller your base, the more precarious the structures built on top of it.) There will always be a natural balance between the full security (but greater expense) of Bitcoin proper (i.e., actual “on-chain” transactions) vs. the reduced security (but reduced expense) of Bitcoin substitutes. The problem with an arbitrary limit on Bitcoin’s base capacity is that it distorts that balance. Related thoughts here and here.

Quote
If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.
This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.

Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It’s a charge of the light brigade moment in this situation.

Absolutely. It makes me crazy how many people don’t seem to get this and say absurd things like: “We should keep the Bitcoin main chain ‘small’ and thus ‘secure’ and ‘decentralized’ while scaling to allow thousands of transactions per second via ‘second-layer solutions’.” It is magical thinking.

Miners control the vote for segwit. Yet they are effectively stealing the votes from the people that purchased the mining equipment. If they believe in the idea that the miners should vote, they should not manipulate the system like that.

The miners are simply stalling so they can protect their interests (ASICBOOST) in BTC. This is nothing more than that. Jihan will ship this batch and use the profits to generate more ASICs for internal use guaranteeing he can block segwit indefinitely OR attack a UASF segwit fork.

Both Jihan and Wang have been playing games to make money, this recent string of events is no different.

Jihan also benefits by suppressing segwit which in turn suppresses LTC price and innovation as he’s currently the producer of the most efficient scrypt ASIC. The longer he can suppress price, the larger share of scrypt hashing he can maintain and further monopolize the LTC market.

This whole mess is the fault of the disgusting Bitcoin developers Gmaxwell, lukejr (let’s reduce the blocksize), back, Todd, theymos & blockstream. Litecoin didn’t need to step into the vomit pit alongside as Charles lee has promised to raise the blocksize if/when needed via hardfork this is literally world apart from lukejr litecoin attacker’s plan to reduce bitcoins blcksize. Who is shaolinfry? it had better not be Gmaxwell as he is a cancerous influence. Litecoin doesnt have full blocks so segwit activation should have been a breeze why did Charles le have to step into the Bitcoin dev vomit pit and keep re-tweeting Samson moe , the mind bogles

This won’t be understood around these part as most litecoiners are completely and utterly drunk on blockstream koolaid and theymos propaganda. I recon when we find out who shaolinfry is he will be an employee of blockstream.

Wow, I think you are not only reditor for 16 days, but in BTC and LTC too… “Miners want segwit” – lol they do not want it NOW, because they still make big profits from ASICBOOST. I have no doubt that sooner or later they will agree on segwit but not now! Especially when NOW they can manipulate the market prices so much. They are making millions and its not just a friendship issue, its money for them – and freedom for users. Maybe your post would fit better about the Bitcoin dev but not about Coblee, he tried nice with them until they trolled us on the last period. So please go read some more books about “How to win friends and influence people” but do not talk about segwit situation beeing in it just for 16 days.

I can prove you one thing, sit down and read reddit and twitter posts and all stories for about last 4 weeks when its all started with LTC. You will understand that when LTC started with segwit for miners like Jihan and few others was no point to block segwit just because of relationship with Coblee because they were good, he was always tolerant. So why they blocked it from the begining? Because they could not let it happen as BTC would be following it with bigger support. And if you believe what says chinese people not usa or europe people, then you have no clue about their culture my friend.

This is bullshit, the miner’s fragile feelings shouldn’t be used to stop segwit when we know that segwit hope already raised litecoin’s price by x5.

If miners want segwit (as you tell us in all-caps), then they should signal for it.

UASF isn’t a threat and miners shouldn’t see it like this, it’s simply how cryptocurrencies work on a technical level.

Sorry to be blunt but there’s a lot of real money at stake here. Many litecoin holders simply don’t care about the miner’s “saving face” or “having their feeling’s hurt”. Miners should do their freaking job, or get another one.

ETH have 14% inflation while BTC 4% so we divide market caps of both: BTC/ETH 19.8/4.5= 4.4 now you divide inflation 14%/4%= 3.5
(so in theory to keep price ETH needs NEW (3.5/4.4)=0,8$ and BTC needs 1$ to keep same price by buying all mined coins)
Okay BTC:ETH ratio is 1:.0,8 in cash flow in $$$ I hope you got it.

Me too, and for a long time reading and absorbing situation I look only into the arguments. I actually even do not troll or hate those miners, I even respect them from the businessmen perspective, because they control the situation pretty well and make tons of money, but from the community perspective, to make LTC or BTC even better, make better future avoiding fiat and ect, they suck very much. Also I would respect them more if they just tell the real truth behind blocking and admit it. But they just too scared to do this.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your sentiment. I was excited about the possibility of Segwit activating on LTC. To that end I moved some hashpower to a pool that supported my position. When Bitmain announced the new L3+s, I bought more and plan on continuing to do same. HOWEVER, when it looked like Segwit/LTC may have trouble activating and then the ltc community went insane with UASF I’ve taken a step back. I’m greatly concerned over this insane behavior. LTC exists BECAUSE of MINERS. And I can’t/don’t view UASF anything but a direct threat and attack on myself and other miners. You want a voice? Start mining. But to arbitrarily change how consensus works? That’s not the litecoin I signed up for.

a mysterious new Litecoin developer, shaolinfry, appeared on the scene. Shaolinfry appears to be deeply familiar with Segwit, and in a short amount of time helped the rest of the LTC development team to finish writing their Segwit implementation. Once he had secured the title of “Litecoin developer,” he switched his focus to Bitcoin, proposing the “user activated soft fork” (UASF). After launching his campaign for UASF on Bitcoin, he did the same for Litecoin and piggybacked on the reputation of Charlie Lee to push for the UASF there, too.

Bullshit. It should have been announced well in advance that test blocks were being mined. If no manipulation then why did the market start rising before the signal happened, and started to dump before the next non-signal block was mined? But you guys saw this as an opportunity to make a quick 10% hence the lack of any communication with the community about this signaling. And Wang Chun says Charlie has problems communicating… #UASF.

The open letter was posted hours in advance. I even re-posted it. You can’t stop traders trading. How is it bullshit? This community is so toxic. The addiction to conspiracy theories, hate train, speculation. Just stop.

The article itself is good, but it doesn’t explain or change what someone commented:

“i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%”

There’s nothing noble going on here. They don’t want UASF, and we don’t a single entity having so much power over the coin. That should be the agreement and nothing more.

I think people are annoyed that Segwit looked very strong in this activation period, but now it’s clear that the sudden uptick in non-Segwit mining hash rate has put a stop to that, even if temporarily.

I sympathise, and Segwit enables some really cool technology, in theory, but I do agree this sub has gone off the rails a bit. There is a Bi-Polar attitude between “Yay Segwit!” and “UASF NOW! MINERS SUCK!”.

We are only in activation period 6, there is plenty of time yet, and Litecoin is much much closer to activation than Bitcoin is.

The community needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and just hurry up and wait patiently in my opinion. Yes, I also want Segwit sooner rather than later, but shouting and screaming about it in this fashion is counter productive.

Bitcoin and Litecoin are both awesome technologies in the meantime, which I continue to enjoy using regularly.

Not everybody is very good at being diplomatic, especially on the internet where we can all hide behind relative anonymity. And cryptos do seem to attract the conspiracy theorist and prepper types. I wouldn’t let it make you too cynical.

I really like the slow movement, even though it can be tedious. I feel that no decisions are being made in a knee jerk way, and that makes me even more comfortable that the right solution will be implemented.

The DDOS attacks were not part of the decision making process for BW. The Litecoin community is not as divided regarding Segwit, in fact there is wide support for it. There are many moving parts to this issue, alot of unforeseen events took place, BW made the plan and followed through. This decision was based on the discussions with our customers, the LTC community, developers and our engineers and came to the conclusion this was the best way to contribute to the growth of LTC.

There is a phrase in Spanish that says, “there is no more blind, than the one who does not want to see” this phrase applies perfectly for this blog. Jiang Zhuoer’s letter is a further part of the market manipulation, it is so obvious that in order to finish it he had to write “Some have claimed that we are messing with Segwit voting to manipulate the market. Please do not misread these actions.”

None of his arguments are valid for Litecoin, when I read it seems that he was wrong and this letter was for Bitcoin developers.

As Charlie Lee said, miners block Segwit for other reasons.

We could talk about technical issues to demonstrate that there is no valid argument for the blockade, we can talk about financial aspects and there are no valid arguments for the blockade. Please understand that these are not conspiracy theories, here we are not talking about who killed JFK, we are talking about something very real, and that something is called money.

Initially when we talked about Segwit activation in Litecoin the price increased. At that moment the miners saw the acceptance that Segwit has in Litecoin community and thought that the next step would be Bitcoin. This is where the blockade for external reasons to Litecoin began. But here they also had a very important opportunity, “win millions with market manipulation” The intention of the miners is to block Segwit at any cost, meanwhile can play with users. Here is where we can see: Segwit activation tweets or hash power – long position / Segwit blocking tweets or hash power – short position

Here is a very important fact, Litecoin’s price was on the rise, and a tweet from Wang Chun on April 6 collapsed the market. This is where anyone with experience in trading could see market manipulation.

The activation of Segwit is something that is going to happen in both Litecoin and Bitcoin, and the miners can not stop it. UASF.

The miners can not kidnap the Litecoin evolution, and use it against the community, for their economic benefit.

Quote from: AngryDwarf on Today at 09:44:56 AM
Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It’s a charge of the light brigade moment in this situation.
The amount of hashrate is really non-important. If practically every business and all exchanges support UASF, miners must join that chain or be left mining useless coins. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/btc propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:05:08 AM
and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.
Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won’t work. Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:05:08 AM
learn consensuslearn decentralised diversity
Ironically, you don’t know either.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 10:37:02 AM
Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won’t work.

your the kind of guy that would think that being vegetarian is the only way to eat because daddy vegan only feeds you veg and you only visit veg stores.get out and explore the world realise that there is more then just the Monsanto carrots on offer and that the world should not be owned by monsanto veg stores”super majority” 31% of blocks…

^ this guy now wants blockstream(core) to not only control bitcoin but other alts too..seriously.. i think Kakmakr doesnt understand decentralised diversityQuote from: Lauda on Today at 09:06:43 AM

Quote
If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.
This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn’t is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.seriously guyslearn consensuslearn decentralised diversitystop being corporate ass kissers and really think about why bitcoin was invented in the first place!

Litecoin should not accept segwit. Litecoin has operated well over the years without any flaws and the number of ltc users are only small thus it does not to adopt segwit at its current condition. Possibly if the situation of LTC is like bitcoin then probably they would mind choosing segwit but in their case segwit will not be a necessary upgrade for the LTC system.

SegWit and blocksize are two different issues. SegWit offers lots of advantages, and should be activated asap. Bigger blocks turn the Bitcoin delivery van into a lumbering articulated lorry, what is required is a rapid Bitcoin motorcycle delivery service with smaller faster blocks.

Quote from: AngryDwarf on Today at 09:44:56 AM
Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It’s a charge of the light brigade moment in this situation.
The amount of hashrate is really non-important. If practically every business and all exchanges support UASF, miners must join that chain or be left mining useless coins. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/btc propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.

The keyword is ‘if’. The exchanges and business that don’t follow the UASF will increase their business. That’s a big incentive for them to follow the majority hash rate. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/bitcoin propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.Perhaps you don’t understand the Mutual Assured Destruction that a contentious fork will create.

There’s nothing insane about UASF, this method of updating was done many times before on bitcoin (most notable, UASF was used for the P2SH update). What’s more UASF was invented by a litecoin developer. Far from an “arbitrary” change of consensus parameters, UASF only happens if the economic majority supports it.

The point of cryptocurrencies isn’t to give miners something to do, the point of cryptocurrencies is to be a decentralized form of money. Miner’s only job is to set the history of transactions.

Users have seen how even the possibility of segwit made litecoin jump by 500%. Honest miners should be supporting segwit to make their mined coins more valuable.

Quote from: AngryDwarf on Today at 10:47:28 AM
The keyword is ‘if’. The exchanges and business that don’t follow the UASF will increase their business.
Inadequate support == no UASF. It’s as simple as that.Quote from: AngryDwarf on Today at 10:47:28 AM
That’s a big incentive for them to follow the majority hash rate.
No. FYI there were flag day soft forks in the past too.Quote
You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/bitcoin propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.Perhaps you don’t understand the Mutual Assured Destruction that a contentious fork will create.
Cut out the bullshit and stop supporting hashrate attacks on the network, which is essentially what BU BTU is. Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:50:05 AM
1. try to explain what advantages segwit ACTUALLY offer THE WHOLE NETWORK . i mean GUARANTEED features that are ACTUALLY achieved
A lot of people are waiting to start using Segwit TXs, that’s your guarantee (partial, not 100% Utopian bullshit that you’re talking about). On the other hand, BTU guaranteed features == none.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:59:51 AM
“alot” “partial” “not 100%” sounds a bit flimsy
All three are accurate representations of the reality. Anything else is an outright lie.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:59:51 AM
also thinking that its only a BU vs debate shows how limited your scope of judgement is.there are more than a dozen implementations.
Straw man argument.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:59:51 AM
you use terms that are obvious repeats from the same reddit crowd.
No.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 10:59:51 AM
those people are not the people that perform malleation/quadratics anyway. so nothing changes in that respect
Miners can and will prioritize Segwit transactions in such cases. I have told you this several times, yet you keep misleading others like a true paid hypocrite.Quote from: AngryDwarf on Today at 12:35:44 PM
I can’t see why anyone would oppose this fix.
The same goes for Segwit. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 01:00:56 PM
you have not even read the codeyou have not read the full documentation
1) You can’t know what I’ve read or what I haven’t read.2) Your completely intentional or unintentional missunderstanding of Segwit shows that either: 2.1) You haven’t read either one. 2.2) You have read it, but you don’t understand it.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 01:00:56 PM
one minute you say pools will prioritise segwit transactions yet for the last few weeks you have been crying about how some pools are abstaining or rejecting segwit.68% of pools blocks are rejecting/abstaining segwit. so dont be fooled by the reddit narrative that pools will prioritise segwit.
One has nothing to do with the other and this has nothing to do with reddit. This is my own conclusion.

LTC exists because of users, developers and miners. Without users there wouldn’t be any miners and no LTC. And without miners no users of course, but it’s the users who give the coin its value on the market and this in turn gives miners an incentive to mine LTC. Miners are part of the picture but they work for the users, not the other way around. UASF should be the standard in my opinion.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 01:09:10 PM
1) You can’t know what I’ve read or what I haven’t read.2) Your completely intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of Segwit shows that either: 2.1) You haven’t read either one. 2.2) You have read it, but you don’t understand it.

1. you have admitted you cant read C++, you ave admitted you cant read walls of text2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.such as how its a ‘opt-in’.but your still not getting the point. its not a network fix. its not a consensus implementation. its a back door half gesture with only if’s buts and maybe’syet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)atleast get passed the word twisting from your groupy mindset of blockstream adoration.. as thats temporary. just like segwits half baked gestures are temporary..try to think with a critical hat and not a utopian sales pitch hat.your only argument its to literally fail at describing segwit and to also fail at pidgeon holing me. think about bitcoins 120+year and not blockstreams couple year ‘experiment’

Disagree completely, Charlie is the one who made all this happen, he is Chinese and understands the culture very well. The negotiating is also going very well, look how far we’ve gotten, nobody ever thought f2pool would start signaling and that was the “it’s happening” moment that sent the price rocketing up. UASF is just another bargaining chip to pressure the miners, and was in response to Jihan’s ASICBOOST stall tactic. It is the nuclear option, but we have to keep it on the table to pressure the last holdouts.

He has some valid concerns…for bitcoin. It’s a non-starter for litecoin. Litecoin does not have the same scaling problems as bitcoin (at least for now), as it has 4x the capacity of bitcoin. Add the fact that /u/coblee said he’d hard fork litecoin, if, and when the need arises to increase the block size.

Quote from: Herbert2020 on Today at 04:51:24 AM
i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance. – currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that. BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin.

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.if you are interested, these coins are:- Groestlcoin – Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

is it? where? i don’t remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin, it’s the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coinpeople are just blindly attached to litecoin that’s why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pumpQuote from: hl5460 on Today at 05:46:11 AM
What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

signaling for a whole period of the diff retarget if i’m not mistaken, just reaching the threshold % activation won’t cut it

You are missing the big picture. Litecoin is different to the rest of coins.1) It’s the longest surviving blockchain (except bitcoin). This makes investors have way more confidence when taking big risks. A coin that could be unlisted from an exchange (like the rest of coins you mentioned) aren’t attractive for the long term. But we all know that LTC will be here for life on the big exchanges.2) It’s basically a bitcoin clone, which is perfect to port code from BTC to LTC. It becomes the ideal way to test segwit in a real scenario. Lightning Network developers will move there, increasing the marketcap several times. We’ll see an all time high on LTC, im not sure when, but we will eventually, that im sure of.

Quote from: Jet Cash on Today at 10:46:33 AM
SegWit and blocksize are two different issues. SegWit offers lots of advantages, and should be activated asap. Bigger blocks turn the Bitcoin delivery van into a lumbering articulated lorry, what is required is a rapid Bitcoin motorcycle delivery service with smaller faster blocks.

1. try to explain what advantages segwit ACTUALLY offer THE WHOLE NETWORK . i mean GUARANTEED features that are ACTUALLY achieved

I disagree and we have different opinions. Miners are inherently selfish and work for themselves. When I’m mining, I’m hoping I find the block and get the reward and not someone else. A byproduct of this selfishness is the fact that I secure the digital LTC ledger/blockchain and also facilitate transactions. Users benefit and take advantage of miner greed and can send transactions. Miners work for themselves. Users have no skin in the game and have no cost for participating in the system. Thanks to exchange fiat/virtual currency on ramp, users can take advantage of the current system and exit any time they want. Miners do not have such a luxury and care that the system remains competitive and keeps participants honest. The system itself gives value to itself and it becomes self fulfilling. In the distant future when the block reward is gone, users may play a larger role as miners will at that point become dependent on fees. We are not there yet and as such users should not be allowed to influence undue control of the economic competition.

Jihan has ulterior motives and is a piece of shit, I am not going to give respect to someone who mines with his own customers’ hardware to block segwit and spits in the community’s face. We have this decentralized currency here without a central controlling entity and now you say we need to suck up to a few rich people and beg them to signal for Segwit? Fuck that, if we have to do things like this in order to upgrade the protocol I want no part of it. Miners can either activate Segwit and make more money or not and wait for users backed by the economic majority to force them to through UASF. I am fine either way and not in a hurry, but I would definitely refuse to suck up to miners with inflated or fragile egos.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 10:53:47 AM
A lot of people are waiting to start using Segwit TXs, that’s your guarantee (partial, not 100% Utopian bullshit that you’re talking about). On the other hand, BTU guaranteed features == none.

“alot” “partial” “not 100%” sounds a bit flimsyalso thinking that its only a BU vs debate shows how limited your scope of judgement is.there are more than a dozen implementations. you use terms that are obvious repeats from the same reddit crowd.just get yourself out of your cabin fever and tke a look outside of the box at the whole network and not just the glossy images that are in favour of corporate blockstream control.as for the people that are waiting to start using segwit tx’s.those people are not the people that perform malleation/quadratics anyway. so nothing changes in that respectthose that are performing malleation/quadratics are the people that wont use segwit keys. so they will still malleate and quadratic spam the network.meaning no fix

Miners need to sell their coins to the market and profit from higher prices users are willing to pay. Therefore it’s the users who ultimately get to decide what kind of features they want, whether you like it or not. I like it. You don’t want to signal Segwit as a miner? Fine then I no longer am your customer who is willing to buy the coins you mine. It’s that simple. It’s no different to a business that wants to satisfy their customers and give them a good service.

Quote from: hl5460 on Today at 04:45:02 AM
Note:Translated from Jiang Zhuoers original post in Chinese.Recently, as the discussion around activating Segwit on Litecoin becomes more and more intense, many people have been asking me why my Litecoin pool is not voting for Segwit. I feel the need to address the whole Segwit issue with the following thoughts of mine.1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.4. The market drives changes5. More and more attackshttp://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

You should not ask why LTC is easy to accept segwit and bitcoin is not acceptable. Because bitcoin requires a high approval rate (95%), while LTCs only need 75%, an easy rate for a currency that has come a long time ago and needs innovation. So, as soon as LTC made the segwit proposal, it was a lot of people agreeing. In addition, bitcoin does not need a segwit, it is really powerful enough for it to work independently.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 12:50:18 PM
There is no rational reason to oppose it.

there isTRY READING THE CODE!!!!!!your opinion is moot.you have not even read the codeyou have not read the full documentationyou have only said “wrong, no, insult, strawman”you have failed to show you fully understand itfor a year now i have gave you many oppertunities to actually spend time learning it all.but your arrogance and devotion to blockstream have blinded youjust read the damned code and documentation in fulleven your own words have debunked your own opinion..one minute you say pools will prioritise segwit transactions yet for the last few weeks you have been crying about how some pools are abstaining or rejecting segwit.68% of pools blocks are rejecting/abstaining segwit. so dont be fooled by the reddit narrative that pools will prioritise segwit.WAKE UP to reality

A lot of people are not behind the SegWit right now, which is kind of understandable for me, because they need 95% of approval for that. In my opinion, it will never happen in bitcoin, way too many miners are standing behind Bitcoin Unlimited, which basically makes SegWit impossible to implement.Another important reason, is that im sure there are some miners that do not really care about SegWit or hard-fork either, they just want to stay on current Bitcoin Core without any changes.So I hope that the BTC community will find altogether some solution, unless we really want to see blockchain being blocked by big amount of transactions every day.

You can like it all you want, but that doesn’t mean anything. Based on current consensus mechanism, that’s not how litecoin works. Users can ask for confidential transactions, side chains, to increase block reward, and they can even ask for a slice of apple pie if they want. You don’t always get what you want. You get what, for lack of a better term, the protocol entitles you to. It doesn’t currently provide you segwit, so you don’t get it. Sorry. You can BET and GAMBLE that the protocol may change to adopt and allow segwit in the future, but you don’t get it right now. And not wanting to buy the coins I mine? Then you aren’t buying litecoin, because that’s currently the only thing that’s being offered by the litecoin protocol. Litecoin sans-segwit. If litecoin doesn’t adopt segwit, is it going to die and break? Nope. It’s been chugging along for years. Will price drop? Maybe? However it still works offering seamless transaction and is fast. It has sufficient liquidity to facilitate moving from exchanges. It works. LTC works at $1 and still works at $10. It works. It works because of Miners. Users should say thank you.

Quote from: jorneyflair on Today at 02:18:01 PM
A lot of people are not behind the SegWit right now, which is kind of understandable for me, because they need 95% of approval for that.
Wrong. Pretty much everyone besides a small minority of users, a few corrupt characters (Ver, Hearn, Andersen, Rizun, et. al.) and Jihan are in support of Segwit. Some pools have officially not made up their minds yet though.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:25:59 PM
1. you have admitted you cant read C++
I can read C++, I don’t code C++. That’s a major difference. If you familiar with one of the high end languages, it doesn’t take much to understand the syntax of another.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:25:59 PM
you ave admitted you cant read walls of text
This is a lie, and yet another example of you posting false information. I’ve said that reading your worthless walls of text is a waste of time.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:25:59 PM
2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around
Quoting part != reading everything & understanding.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:25:59 PM
2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.such as how its a ‘opt-in’.
You understand nothing.Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:25:59 PM
its a back door half gesture with only if’s buts and maybe’s yet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)
This is another lie. I wonder how much $ you get per post.

We’ll see, try and stop us from implementing Segwit. We’ll get it one way or another and you ain’t gonna stop it. Sorry but miners do not have the power, the userbase does. And no I’m not going to say thank you, give me a break lol.

As I think you’ve seen… users don’t implement Segwit, Miners do. And if overall they don’t want it activated, it’s not going to activate. So again, you, as a user, aren’t going to implement Segwit. Miners may decide to activate segwit but that goal certainly isn’t helped by mob mentality screaming for UASF. Take a moment to think about the miner perspective: UASF strips miners of their ability to guide the network after they’ve purchased equipment to participate in the system. It’s like playing a game and half way through the people you’re playing with change the rules. That could result in a contentious split and bad things would happen. It’s best to avoid bad things happening.

He also says, “The Litecoin community will wait until Charlie Lee’s visit to China to make this decision together.”

That works for me. But he should understand that if the group decides to oppose segwit at the June meeting, the wider community will either push forward via UASF or abandon Litecoin for being too centralized and manipulated to hold its value.

The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.

SegWit does increase the block size. It creates a serialized block whose size is limited to 1 MB for non-witness data plus however much space the witness data needs. Estimates are that this averages out to about 2 MB blocks.

the UASF has gone through no similar community consensus. Instead it is a way for developers to act as dictators

Holy hyperbole. UASF is just another way for end users running validating nodes to select between different proposals. Enforcing the protocol is not the job of miners alone, but of all validating nodes. Hence the name, “validating nodes”. UASF-like mechanisms have been used before, though combined with simple majority (>50%) hash rate requirements as well. For example, the activation of P2SH on bitcoin was done by a UASF, essentially, with a 51% hash rate requirement. Having a simple majority hash rate requirement in there is a good way to temper fears about a bare UASF that disregards hashing power.

To be honest, while he’s the creator and essentially the only hope for Litecoin, he has not done very much for Litecoin in the past few years. No coding, nothing. Comes back and expects to have huge influence in the course of a week.

why dont we just update to a version that activates segwit regardless of the signalng if this period fails? i mean hasnt the real market already spoken out enough pro segwit?! wouldnt this just be a good idea to counter jihan?

It’s easy to be a backseat driver. Not many people know how much work and effort we’ve put into negotiating with miners/pools to get to where we are today. You really shouldn’t criticize when you only see 1% of what’s happening. You wouldn’t believe the amount of work it took for me to convince them to actually come to the negotiating table. You thought this online meeting was planned Yesterday and that we haven’t talked for all this time?!?

All you guys see are just results. Our team managed to get signaling from 0% to 70+%, convincing one miner/pool at a time. And constantly fighting FUD from some people. If not for all the work we put into this, SegWit signaling would be at 5% today. So I don’t think you or anyone should be criticizing me or the Litecoin dev team.

One day, when all this is behind us, I might document everything that happened. It will fill a book.

Essentially it’s your work we all benefit from Charlie and you as a CEO certainly don’t need to be spending precious time babysitting backseat drivers that have an opinion on what you should or shouldn’t do, as you said what is in the public knowledge base is small percentages of what is really happening.

Thankyou for your efforts and your dedication. Miners, exchanges, wallet development, system improvements, employees, R&D and physical assets are things not many think about when posting on reddit. You Are So Funny

You know there might be a movie about this when we’re older never thought about that til now. I think people aren’t understanding where the miners are coming from, what the reason is they don’t signal SW because LTC doesn’t have a blocksize on-chain scaling problem? Haven’t heard from their side why.

That was one example of many “non fud”. You are speculating and once again, coming up with bullshit conspiracies like everyone else when anything is negative. For all I know, you think I am trying to get the price low because I am shorting or to buy cheap coins, or I work for Jihan. Maybe a paid shill?

The only reason you call me a fudstar is because I don’t follow the echo chamber. UASF, miners suck, die! Praise Charlie. Think for yourselves people. Just because I am not a sheep doesn’t mean I am short.

I really wish there was a workable way to just say “fuck china” and firewall them off from the world. They have been nothing but a nightmare to the crypto scene.

Cryptocurrencies were created to bypass the state. I dont see the point of pandering to Chinese nationalists when the entire purpose of this system is to bypass nationalists. Fuck them and their culture, which is mostly just an obsession with money anyways. I always thought America was bad until I started to realize how entrenched the chinese are with their obsession of being seen as “successful” or “rich”. Its sickening and its poisoning the well.

Quote from: Lauda on April 20, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
1) You can’t know what I’ve read or what I haven’t read.2) Your completely intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of Segwit shows that either: 2.1) You haven’t read either one. 2.2) You have read it, but you don’t understand it.

1. you have admitted you cant read C++, you ave admitted you cant read walls of text2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.such as how its a ‘opt-in’.but your still not getting the point. its not a network fix. its not a consensus implementation. its a back door half gesture with only if’s buts and maybe’syet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)atleast get passed the word twisting from your groupy mindset of blockstream adoration.. as thats temporary. just like segwits half baked gestures are temporary..try to think with a critical hat and not a utopian sales pitch hat.your only argument its to literally fail at describing segwit and to also fail at pidgeon holing me. think about bitcoins 120+year and not blockstreams couple year ‘experiment’

I’m amazed you still have the patience to respond to this troll. Lauda loves to argue technical points, and when an argument is refuted, he just pivots his argument to a different point.He’s a successful troll because he’s been able to use this tactic over and over while being so wrong and arrogant than he baits you into further respondingto nonsense.

You are missing the big picture. Litecoin is different to the rest of coins.1) It’s the longest surviving blockchain (except bitcoin). This makes investors have way more confidence when taking big risks. A coin that could be unlisted from an exchange (like the rest of coins you mentioned) aren’t attractive for the long term. But we all know that LTC will be here for life on the big exchanges.2) It’s basically a bitcoin clone, which is perfect to port code from BTC to LTC. It becomes the ideal way to test segwit in a real scenario. Lightning Network developers will move there, increasing the marketcap several times. We’ll see an all time high on LTC, im not sure when, but we will eventually, that im sure of.